Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Com'n v. Prall, DANVILLE-BOYLE

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
Writing for the CourtREYNOLDS
Citation840 S.W.2d 205
PartiesCOUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, Movant, v. Thomas PRALL and Edna Prall, County of Boyle, Respondents.
Docket NumberDANVILLE-BOYLE,No. 91-SC-782-DG,91-SC-782-DG
Decision Date19 November 1992

Page 205

840 S.W.2d 205
Thomas PRALL and Edna Prall, County of Boyle, Respondents.
No. 91-SC-782-DG.
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Nov. 19, 1992.

Elizabeth Nickels, Silliman, Dishman & Nickels, Danville, for movant.

Helen C. Helton, Helton & Helton, Danville, for respondents, Pralls.

George M. McClure, Danville, for respondent, County of Boyle.

REYNOLDS, Justice.

This zoning case requires a definitive expression of this Court's views concerning basic requirements to be observed in the procedure of amending a Planned Unit Development.

Respondents, Thomas and Edna Prall, sought to have their agriculturally zoned property (11.03 acres) changed into the following classifications. The respondents requested that 9.06 acres be rezoned R-1 (low density residential) and the remaining 1.97 acres be rezoned C-2 (neighborhood commercial). The tracts, while separated by a creek, adjoined one another with the latter tract containing highway frontage. At a public hearing upon both zoning requests, the residential zoning was approved and is not the subject of this litigation. The C-2 zoning was coupled with and dependent upon a Planned Unit Development (PUD) procedure.

At the early 1987 zone change hearing, respondent, Thomas Prall, represented to the Commission and interested landowners that the residential development would be as restrictive or more stringent than those restrictions governing the adjacent residential subdivision. It was further represented that the neighborhood commercial (C-2) tract would be controlled. The respondents' development plan displayed one structure, a 6,000 square foot building, with pavement, adjoining gasoline pumps and parking areas. The structure was to be utilized for a convenience store and the rest of the 1.97 acre lot was to be a green space buffer zone with picnic tables, sidewalks and a bridge across the creek at the rear of the property. Respondent offered

Page 206

assurances of his intentions as being portrayed by the development plan.

The C-2 zone change was approved and conditioned upon the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Boyle Fiscal Court subsequently approved the rezoning with PUD.

The April 1, 1987, Planning and Zoning hearing resulted in the approval of the respondents' plat which was demonstrative of the Planned Unit Development.

While the idea of Planned Unit Development is a relatively new concept in zoning, usually with respect to residential development, it is useable in conjunction with a commercial concept. Control of density in the area to be developed is an essential part of the plan and the preservation of green/open space is another ingredient. Conformity to good landscaping as the respondents exhibited in the original development plan is also an objective. See 43 ALR3d p. 888 (1972).

In June 1988, respondents were permitted an amendment to the development plan only to the extent that the 6,000 square foot building could be internally divided into four distinct sections and with the use of one section being offered for a dry cleaning service.

Two years after the initial zoning and PUD (April 1989) respondents applied for a substantial additional amendment to their original development plan and sought permission to erect a second building (containing 3,600 feet) designed for professional and governmental offices. At the public hearings upon this latter application, respondent referred to the green space buffer area as vacant property. (May 17, June 7 and July 5, 1989). The request for this amendment was subsequently denied by the Commission, and upon appeal, Boyle Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's decision. The Kentucky Court of Appeals' opinion directed that the order of Boyle Circuit Court be vacated and the matter remanded with directions to order a "public hearing" upon the Pralls' application.

At issue is the type of hearing to which respondents were entitled upon the amendment application to the Planned Unit Development.

The zoning regulation speaks to Planned Unit Developments in Boyle County. It provides for a recognition of special characteristics of Planned Unit Developments. It evolves from a variety of devices coined to meet specific land use control problems. It has roots in open space zoning, special permit procedures, and subdivision techniques. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Vol. 2, Sec. 11.09 (1968).

The Pralls' tract of 1.97 acres was, in the past, utilized as a part of a drive-in theater type business and which area was improperly classified as an Agriculture-1 district. The application for zoning change to a Commercial-2 zone came before the Planning and Zoning Commission by public/open hearing in early 1987. At the initial hearing, the Pralls were represented by an attorney. Neighborhood residents...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Mohilef v. Janovici, B096420
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 1996
    ...does not require, in the context of a Planning Commission hearing, the swearing of witnesses." (Danville-Boyle County v. Prall (Ky.1992) 840 S.W.2d 205, 207, citations Other state courts have reached similar conclusions. (See, e.g., East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona F.N. & P. (1972......
  • Baker v. Commonwealth, No. 2005-CA-001588-MR (Ky. App. 10/19/2007), 2005-CA-001588-MR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • October 19, 2007
    ...concept of constitutional due process in administrative hearings is flexible." Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Com'n v. Prall, 840 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Ky. 1992). This flexibility leaves reviewing courts free to grant only "such procedural protections as the particular situation may d......
  • Monumental Life v. Dept. of Revenue, 2005-CA-002148-MR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • June 27, 2008
    ...Fire Service Managers Assoc. ex rel. Kaelin, 212 S.W.3d 89, 94 (Ky.2006); Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Commission v. Prall, 840 S.W.2d 205 (Ky. 1992). However, Monumental established through the testimony of Professor Pomp that it was entitled to the relief sought, and the Cabi......
  • City of Mayfield v. Kennemore, 2016-CA-000841-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • August 5, 2016
    ...is clearly erroneous when it is "unsupported by substantial evidence." Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Comm'n v. Prall, 840 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Ky. 1992). And, substantial evidence is evidence "that has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT